New forms of Government

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by data2.0, Aug 2, 2012.

  1. data2.0 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    75
    "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." ~ Winston Churchill

    Any ideas for a new form of government?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    I do not believe there are any truly new forms of government under the Sun (that anyone would bother instituting, at least, we could have, for example, government by people who know how to juggle, and that would be new, if "newness" were the only criteria we cared about).

    We could some day use artificial intelligence to rule us. That concept is hardly new (certainly not in science fiction) but we do not have a good name for it yet..."Halocracy," perhaps? Sadly technocracy is already taken, in a different context. We could have an AI select the best and brightest and have them run the government (until they cease to be the best and brightest, at which point they would be replaced), a sort of augmented aristocracy. We could have an AI select a representtive sampling of people chosen because they are so statistically representative of major demographic groups within the population.

    The one I think might work better than ny of these would be a system in which we each have our own personal AIs (working, likely, as digitized personal assistants to us) into which we program our personal political and economic preferences (or which deduce those preferences from obeservation of and interaction with us) who then serve as our personal proxies in the government. It would be kind of like direct democracy, but instead of each man and woman being involved, we each merely send our AI proxies. That is also "government by AI", but multiple AI would act as checks and balances against one another, and it would overcome the major problems of a direct democracy: the time and tedium involved in human's focusing on and resolving political issues. AIs that accurately reflect our preferences could read proposed laws and negotiate changes in the blink of an eye, as well as keep track of the countless details of various legislative proposals.

    Okay, small problem, they could also be hacked, but the human mind is hardly immune from being manipulated either.

    A think of government of AI proxies might actually work. Unfortunately, it will be decades, at least, before we have AI sophisticated enough to entrust that role to.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Ideally a system that uses our technological capacity to allow people to pool their views together on how things should be done (People making/voting on policies) would be the best approach, the removal of parties and individual politicians. The problem is there are a lot of naysayers that say it wouldn't work, there is also a lot of people that wouldn't want it to work since their corrupt manipulation of countries and law would no longer be as easy.

    If politicians had to continue in some roll, it should be completely voluntary (Government being a charity), where they wouldn't earn from their position, mainly due to how capitalising tends to introduce corruption into our current echelon.

    Of course these are just all idealistic utilitarian pipe-dreams, "there is too many crooks spoiling the broth".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    I'm in that group of naysayers. Direct democracy is too time consuming (especially in our modern world) and requires too much focus (only the people passionate about political issues would bother to spend their time working on the relavant laws...the more apathetic majority would be too bored by the process). I already have an 80 hour a week job, so I am not spending another 20, or even 10 hours a week working on legislation. I also don't want to be ruled by the no-life losers who do want to do that...plus the people with the most spare time on their hands would inadvertantly have a disproportionate impact on the world. No thanks.

    Now, if I could get a bot that knows me backwards and forwards to take the drudgery out of it...sweet.
     
  8. RoccoR Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    data2.0, et al,

    The problem is not the form of government. The problem is in the ethics of a politician's business practices and the focus of political parties.

    (COMMENT)

    In America, there is an openly spoken truth; so open we glamorize it:

    The Ethics of an American Politician is based on self interest. The politician will take any action that will serve his agenda, promote re-election, and stand within the party grace.

    A politician will intentionally mislead or offend the people. Any statements made by an American Politician, at any time, is only as truthful as it is convenient to the agenda. An American Politician will falsely represent issues to the people; make promises that the politician knows cannot be kept, or make promises unlikely to be kept. They will pledge their votes in favor of conflict between parties; stalling legislation in favor of their party image, rather than work cooperatively for the benefit of the nation and its people. Politicians and parties form economic bonds with corporations and influential entities for mutual profit. ​

    There is no lower life-form on the Earth than a Politician; with the possible exception of a used car salesman or an ambulance chasing attorney.

    Just One Man's Opinion.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  9. data2.0 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    75
    Really just want to know what type of governments we might have in the future, not that I'm criticizing Democracy.
     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    I'm always amazed at how people think being an MP isn't a full time job. I spent a semester analysing a single bill and it am still took most of my time to do it, not because it was a nessarly complex technical bill because it wasn't, it was also in an area I knew quite well and was amending a bill I deal with on a day to say basis and so know off the top of my head. It's just time consuming to read proposed legislation in that much detail knowing of your wrong it could have long term unforeseen conquences and all I was doing was submitting a submission on the Bill, I didnt have to amend it or vote on it, then think about the fact that level of detail is required for all of a hundred or more bills which go through parliament each year, some simple like varying sitting times but others far more complex than the one I was dealing with and you start to apreciate the workload that members actuall DO have. Then you have minsters with even more responsibility and all the committees and the all the work they do as a local member representing consituatants to goverment departments and whatnot and the workload becomes really significant. As for styders comment that this should be all done unpaid, well that's the fastest way I can see to MAKE the system corrupt, you lock out everyone who isn't starting ritch for starters because they have to be able to live x number of years with no income and then you put no incentive to do it which means people are going to find there own incentives, ie if I scratch your back you give me a job doing nothing and earning a mill tomorrow
     
  11. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    It doesn't matter under which name or idealism a government operates, the kind of life lived by its constituents is the test.
    Nearly every style of government has had workable policies of some sort, and equal failures.
    The term democracy has covered such diversity that it is a worthless description.
    New government? These dreams always have a hefty price tag.
     
  12. RoccoR Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    Gerhard Kemmerer, et al,

    In America, we can have a new government in every new election. All that needs to be done is that we vote-out every incumbent up for re-election.

    (COMMENT)

    Our government has changed so very much since I was in school in the '60's. And with the events of 911, some things, which I would have thought unthinkable back then, have come to pass.

    In America, government is all about "people." The people who vote, the people in Congress, and the people who are in the white House. It is a government by the people and for the people. It is really that simple. If you change the "people" --- you change the government. What we call it is really unimportant. It is just a fancy label that gives rise to arguments, and allows discussion to hide behind terminology.

    If we want to create a new kind of government, then it should be: A "Government of Action." One that is dedicated to the needs of the people, not the party.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2012
  13. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Global utopian kingship.
     
  14. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    # 10 Comment here - Yet nobody has told you the United states is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.

    However they are similar concepts so I will add what I came to this post to add.

    Heads of state need longer than 2 terms in my opinion. Necessary moves can be unpopular with the voting public, and they often get instantly removed from office.

    Let us imagine that a president embraced the global warming concept and increased income taxes 20% and added 30% to the cost of gas guzzling cars, and 40% increase in cost to gasoline. These are not practical increases, but for the sake of argument. Let us pretend that we could vastly slow down global warming or reverse it with such effort (even if impossible, we are pretending).

    Now even though we could stamp out global warming with these huge tax increases the American (other republics) people would not think of the world as a whole but instead think selfishly as individuals and prefer to have the 20% extra income and cheaper gas. The new president would be doomed come the next election if he lived that long. This is the problem with Republics and democracy. People constantly vote for what is immediately best for them with little regard to the future of the country. America is fortunate that some money is deemed as necessary or new candidates would cancel the military to buy votes with a huge income tax increase.

    Canada and Britain have a slightly better system in place as politicians are not limited to two - four year terms. All political positions should be increased by 50% in my opinion. 6 year presidential terms, etc. This might allow them to make changes that are longer term.

    There are some company CEO's who believe happy workers work better and harder. A free country is a beautiful and happy place to be, so let us hope we are never forced into socialism.
     
  15. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    What about something automated (e.g. Skynet)? Something that completely takes the humans out of the equation of determining their own destinies. Hey, I didn't say it was an improvement but it's certainly "something" untried.
     
  16. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    That republic/democracy is. Missunderstanding of what the terms mean. Republic means you have a presidential head of state as opposed to Australia, Canada, the UK, NZ etc where we have the queen as our head of state. We are all democracies through because we elect our leaders. If Australia ever gets off its ass and votes to become a republic we don't suddenly become undemocratic, it's just we change from the queen represented by the Govenor General to the GG being called president and being the official head of state
     
  17. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    That's what I love about the US, its what has made it so attractive to millions living in oppressed countries.

    But if the people are making the rules, what happens if the country is filled with a mentality that does not know how to preserve freedom and prosperity? That's a tragedy.
     

Share This Page